In Mayer v. City of Chicago (1971), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants are not entitled to a free transcript for discretionary appeals or other post-conviction proceedings, unless they can demonstrate that such denial would infringe upon their constitutional rights. The case was brought by petitioner Johnnie Mae Mayer who sought a free transcript after being convicted of shoplifting in order to appeal her conviction and sentence. She argued that as an indigent defendant, she had the right to a free trial transcript under Griffin v. Illinois (1956) which held it unconstitutional for states to condition appeals on payment for transcripts. However, the court distinguished between automatic direct appeals where transcripts must be provided at no cost and discretionary reviews or collateral attacks where there is no absolute right to appeal hence no obligation on part of state's resources.

In the dissenting opinion for Mayer v. City of Chicago, Justice Black disagreed with the majority's decision to expand the right to a free transcript on appeal beyond indigent defendants in criminal cases. He argued that this expansion was not supported by either precedent or constitutional text and could impose significant costs on local governments without clear benefit. Furthermore, he contended that it is not inherently unfair for wealthier litigants to have access to more resources than poorer ones; rather, what matters is whether all parties have an adequate opportunity to present their case. In his view, providing a free transcript does not necessarily improve this opportunity and may even create perverse incentives by encouraging frivolous appeals.